A June decision by the Canadian Supreme Court orders a wife to participate in her husband’s future financial losses. The National Post reports that it is only fair that if a wife can participate in a husband’s future earnings, based on their marriage, she also participate in his future debts, based on their marriage.

The trophy wives are on their way out in London. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the city's financial districts and rumors are flying that dozens more are on the way. The result? A trophy wife exodus.

Sandra Davis of Mishcon de Reya — the law firm formerly known as "Heather Mills' lawyers" — says that since the layoffs have started the number of inquiries about divorce and division of assets has tripled. "When money looks like [it's] flying out the window, love walks out of the door."

Paula Hall from Relate, a relationship counseling service, has a slightly less cynical view. "More financial stress will tend to show the cracks in marriage contracts which were either overtly or covertly financial in the first place."

Another Mishcon de Reya divorce attorney Miles Geffin thinks that the increase isn't just as simple as the trophy wives marching out the door while there are still assets to divide. He thinks that the working partner — in this case, the man — has just as much motivation to divorce under these circumstances as the woman.

"Businessmen who lose their job often see it as an opportunity to head straight off to the divorce court before they find a new job — so alimony payments will be based on their unemployed status."

Click here for more.

Nowadays, some men are looking at divorce as something that they can win, similar to the lotto. At least that's the message being given by Australian men's mag Zoo Weekly. Its readers are invited to write in and explain why they deserve to "win" a divorce.

The competition will allow one lucky, disgruntled husband to "unleash themselves back to bachelorhood" without having to spend a cent on the inconvenience of lawyers.

Zoo Weekly claims its $10,000 divorce package is an Australian first and has everything a marriage escapee needs to embrace the life of a bachelor, including a divorce party complete with pin-up girls.

The other prizes include a three-tiered divorce cake, a home cleaner, a plasma television, PlayStation 3, and a year's subscription to Zoo to help ease transition from the marital home.

Zoo Weekly has previously been host to another tasteless contest in which readers were encouraged to enter to win free breast enhancement for their girlfriend. Surprised? Not so much.

Click here for more.

How does a man once worth an estimated $10 million find himself broke, in divorce court, donning a jail uniform and begging his ex-wife for money? Well, with any luck, he wouldn't. But it doesn't seem that luck has been on the side of 72-year-old Ronald Miserendino lately.

After leaving his first wife and their six children on the east coast, Miserendino moved to Milwaukee. It was there that he met his second wife, Cynthia Son, when she came and applied for the job of his housekeeper. Within six months they were married and they had three children in four years. Wow, these kids moved kind fast.

In 2001, after 22 years of marriage, Cynthia filed for divorce and that's where Miserendino's problems seem to have began.

He refused to accept the service of his divorce papers, and with the help of his son, Mark, set out to secretly liquidate his company's assets and go underground.

The effort involved taking out a bank loan for $5 million, a $500,000 advance on the company's line of credit, and cashing in Treasury bonds worth more than $10 million, according to court records. Miserendino then gave the $5 million from the bank loan to his son. Mark got smaller cashier's checks and sent them to his father, who was secretly in Hawaii, where his company owned a house and two lots.

The divorce was granted and courts awarded Cynthia $5 million, but the money was gone.

In November 2005, after living with a girlfriend secretly in Hawaii and failing in an attempt at bankruptcy, Miserendino moved back to the mainland, where he was quickly arrested when his federal warrant showed up during a routine traffic stop. He is still awaiting sentencing.

Men receiving alimony want a little respect, says the title of an article in today's Wall Street Journal. Its been nearly 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against gender discrimination with regard to alimony, and divorce experts say that fewer and fewer men are outright rejecting any talk of seeking alimony.

In fact, the percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose from 3.6% during the five years ending in 2006, up from 2.4%, in the previous five year period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

They say that percentage is likely to rise as more and more marriages feature a primary earner who is female. In 2005, which is the last year for which data is available, wives out earned their husbands in 33% of all families, up an incredible 28.2% a decade earlier.

Today's men are receiving alimony for the classic reasons that women traditionally do and did. The most common argument: They sacrificed their careers for the sake of their wives'.

Some feminists say that this shows progress of some sort. "We can't assert rights for women and say that men aren't entitled to the same rights," says famous feminist lawyer Gloria Allred.

Click here for more.

Baby Phat fashion designer Kimora Lee Simmons and entertainment mogul Russell Simmons broke it off two years ago in March 2006, but until recently neither had filed for divorce. They have however moved on, as Kimora has already been dating actor Djimon Honsou for quite some time.

Perhaps it was that fact that finally provoked Kimora to file for divorce on Tuesday in a Los Angeles court.

Kimora and Russell were married for seven years and have two daughters 8-year-old Ming Lee and 5-year-old Aoki Lee. It doesn't appear though that we'll be seeing any Britney vs. K-Fed style custody battles out of these two as in the papers filed she requested that Russell be granted, "reasonable child visitation ... accompanied at all times by the children's nanny and security personnel."

But what have they been doing for the past two years? Click here for more.

Terrell and Martina Grier's divorce proceedings should have taken 18 months or less. Instead, it took a little over four years. After shelling out years' worth of legal fees, both parties walked away with out a home or cars and drained their retirement accounts, according to court records.

Who's to blame? The courts, where the case was passed to two judges and at least 10 continuances were granted, surely didn't help. Terrell Grier says it is his ex's attorney that drew it out; Martina's attorney says it was actually Terrell. (Sounds like these two need some couples therapy.)

Click here for more.

We reported last week that Kevin Federline's attorneys were requesting Britney Spears (seen here, during the good old days) to cover her ex's legal woes — to the tune of $405,000. That's in addition to the $685,000 she owes her own lawyers. Ouch.

Spears has, in fact, been ordered to pay K-Fed's lawyer, Mark Kaplan, $375,000. Double ouch.

Better get back into the recording studio real quick, Brit.

We're wondering if this is fair. Yes, she initiated the divorce, but would Federline have sat quietly has the happy husband had she not filed? Well, maybe, if the bank account buffet was open 24 hours. Federline turned out to be the smarter (and saner) of the two...

Click here for more.

The high court has ruled: Heather Mills will receive close to $50 million from ex Paul McCartney.

Although previous reports had Mills considering appealing the ruling, this morning she told reporters she was, "so, so happy" with the outcome.

We would be, too.

The former couple's child, Beatrice, will also receive $70K a year, and McCartney will be responsible for nanny and school expenses.

Click here for more.

It seems like everybody has got a piece of advice for Silda Spitzer, but I found the advice given by New York Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams to be shocking.

In an article titled "Stay With Shpritzer, Smart Lady," Cindy Adams said (among other things):

"I want to tell her — so what. She may not longer be New York's first lady, but a husband hooking up with a hooker is not reason enough to no longer be a married lady."

and

"Sex, a primal need, outpoints fear, hunger and love as mankind's No. 1 driving force. Unless you're a pig or a monk, many an able-bodied — and I use that term deliberately — 48-year-old husband of 21 years has grazed. I'm not advocating it. I'm merely saying, so what? It's like takeout food. Less work for mother."

and then added

"Paying a pro isn't disrespect to his wife."

Whoa. I completely disagree. I think that "a husband hooking up with a hooker" is not only enough of a reason, but a fabulous reason to no longer be a married lady. In my book, and I think that a lot of women will agree with me here, it's grounds for instant divorce, no discussions.

And what's with the "so what" attitude? This is a big deal. Infidelity is heartbreaking. I can't believe she is making it seem so trivial. Then comparing hiring a hooker to takeout food?! You know, a lot of married women enjoy having sex. I did. In fact, I don't think I know any who don't. Besides, has anyone here ever spent $80,000 on takeout food?

Click here for more.